get_component

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'returns info' and does not disclose what happens for unknown names, the format of the returned info, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one param and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not clarify what 'component info' includes or how exact matching works. Given no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by exact name' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, making baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns design system component info, with the qualifier 'by exact name' indicating an exact lookup. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_component_for_use_case and list_components_by_category, though it does not explicitly mention them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when the exact component name is known, but provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or what to use instead. Sibling names hint at alternatives, but the description itself doesn't state them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.